[eDebate] Travel issues

Michael Souders micksouders
Fri Jul 25 03:04:25 CDT 2008


Mr. A. Olney,

You, sir, are now my new favorite Olney.  Yes, Veronica's post was assuming
the NDT is a goal for teams.  Perhaps not THE goal for every team, but a
goal for many nonetheless.  It is quite astute of you to have picked up on
the context of the thread.  A tribute, one might even say, to those who have
particpated in your clearly superior education.  You are very honest, too.
Few people, especially in debate, will admit to what is "beyond" the limits
of their knowledge.  Why people like the NDT is apparently beyond the limits
of yours.  Well said.  But I'll admit I am a bit skeptical of your claim
that you know what "We all need to have" regarding attitude.  Perhaps it's
because you think the NDT is elitist--or exclusionary, as you say.  It's
true, the schools I personally qualified with, Seattle U. and Eastern New
Mexico University ARE pretty elite (especially ENMU) and this year's list of
schools reads like a series of yuppy Ivy League wannabes: Emporia State,
Weber State, Wyoming, Central Oklahoma, Oklahoma, Idaho State, West Georgia,
Wayne State, UT-Dallas, San Francisco State, North Texas, Missouri
State, elite after elite after elite.  I especially despise that
Springfield, Missouri elitism.  It is truly the worst sort of snobbery.  But
it doesn't have to be this way!  Perhaps we find a way to create a world
where both a moderate size tournament--which is limited in final
participations, like the World Cup, but is the end of a
universal qualification system--can co-exist with a fully open
national  championship tournament.  Perhaps, and I admit I may be a dreamer
here, we can make the goals of openness and community celebration in one
tournament exist simultaneously with those craving a sense of achievement in
reaching a national championship tournament--one where qualification itself
is a reward and participation an experience.  Just maybe, we could make so
that you could try to qualify for one without sacrificing the opporunity to
participate in the other.    But no!  Surely in such a world one would
destroy the other in matter of just a few years--participation would not
remain robust in both, stylistics differences would not be accomodated to
different degrees in both.  Instead, I would predict, in less than a decade
of these two living side by side--perhaps only a week apart!--one would a
eliminate the other or so homogenize the other so the the national champion
in one would mirror the national champion in the other.  And lo, in this
winners Towson and Wake Forest, we can see that it has come to pass.  Same
old, same old.  Well, we all have to wake up from such dreams right?


On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Aaron Olney <aaron.olney at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> This is assuming that NDT is the goal.  NDT to most schools shouldn't be
> the goal and why NDT is the goal is beyond me.  NDT is exclusionary and if
> we all had the FUCK the NDT attitude that was apparent premerge, none of
> this dialogue would even be in effect.
>
> NDT was almost dead and should have died off long ago, but CEDA saved
> them.    We all need to have that FUCK the NDT attitude again.
>   On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Michael Souders <micksouders at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>   Veronica,
>>
>> While increased consideration of regional tournaments would be helpful, it
>> is already the case that a successful regional tournament record can earn
>> you a second round bid.  Consider just this year.  Kansas State MZ went
>> 2-6 at Harvard and 3-5 at Wake Forest, did not attend any of the other major
>> tournaments, but displayed local dominance and had solid performances at
>> regional/mid-major tournaments (UTD/UNT).  They demonstrated that local
>> dominance and regional success can turn into a respectable performance at
>> the NDT as well.  I thnk this a good example because although K-State
>> attended a couple of major national tournaments, it seems to me that their
>> bid was earned on the strength of the district and regional performances and
>> good prelim record.   Emporia FT attended only a two very large
>> tournament (Texas and Wake) and earned a total of a 7-9 record there.   However,
>> they consistently reached and won elimination rounds at the district level
>> (UCO, KCKCC, Baylor) and regional level (UTD, UNT, UNLV) tournaments.  Again,
>> from an outsider's perspective I would consider success at the
>> local/regional level was the key to qualification.
>>
>> It seems to me that the formula for a second round if you attend most
>> national tournaments it to go 4-4 at all of them?or at least all but one.
>> But sorting yourself out from the others applicants who go 4-4 requires
>> that you beat the teams you are supposed to beat?i.e., that district teams
>> that either do not travel to the national circuit or that consistently do
>> not reach the 4-4 mark.  This means 4-4 caliber must go local because
>> these occur in the local and regional tournaments.  Maybe once or twice a
>> prelim, but more importantly in the paneled second, third, or fourth elim,
>> you will face another 4-4 caliber team and you need to beat them.  Beat
>> several 4-4 teams you will obtain wins against other applicants and likely
>> against those who will qualify via districts.
>>
>> If you cannot travel much national circuit tournaments, you need to
>> regularly beat those teams that do go to national circuit and do go 4-4
>> there.  Demonstrate your regional status is not a result of lack of
>> quality but for others reasons (unknown to the evaluators).  What's nice
>> is that the new Brushke systems allow you to quickly compare teams against
>> other second-round applicants and against those already qualified.  Get
>> some quality wins at home and your applications will stand out.  Bolster
>> that with a substantially above .500 record and you probably have yourself
>> an NDT, no national travel needed.  My GUESS is that voters consider
>> these factors:
>>
>> 1.       Prelim record (as a baseline)
>>
>> 2.       Record against other 2nd Round applicants.
>>
>> 3.       Record against qualifiers.
>>
>> 4.       Record at national tournaments.
>>
>> 5.       Local/regional dominance (5-6 prelim wins, 2+ elim wins, etc).
>>
>> The order might be wrong, but I don't think the factors are
>> wrong. (Perhaps a voter could speak to this?)  Obviously, without the
>> travel you cannot get #4, but 2 and 3 will check reluctance if you do well
>> at them.
>>
>> Of course, my ideas present a problem.  What if no one in your district
>> travels to the national circuit and therefore you cannot get wins against
>> those persons going 4-4 at national circuit tournaments?  This is
>> unlikely, but it might happen.  To some extent, if the voters are
>> deprived of criteria then they can hardly be blamed for ignoring such teams.
>> But it's not all done with or futile.  In this case, regional tournaments
>> (I mean octofinal, partial octofinal size tournaments?I'm thinking of
>> Gonzaga, UNT, UTD) are huge.  Most 4-4 teams cannot avoid attending
>> them?they need wins to pad their own possible applications since they know a
>> district bid is not guaranteed.  Heck, many don't even know they are 4-4
>> caliber until after the swing season anyway.  And, of course, you can
>> always beat those teams in your own district who will qualify through
>> districts.  In that case, you have wins against NDT qualifiers.  So I
>> think there are effective ways no what your situation.  But it should
>> come as n- surprise that if you are entirely trapped at the district circuit
>> level (in my three tier district, regional, national conception?a system of
>> convenience only) your opportunities decline.  You must prepare and seize
>> the ones you do get.  And if all else fails; if you debate no teams from
>> outside your district, your district top teams don't come to local
>> tournaments, you cannot get to regional tournaments, etc?you still have an
>> option: beat your competition at your district qualifier.
>>
>> Mick
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080725/add1c192/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list